Must you be a graduate of an Ivy League school to earn your bona fides as a smart person? Is it a requirement that you have great success in the private sector to demonstrate how smart and capable you are?

Anyone who thinks Republicans are stupid is missing the point. What those dummies Bush and Perry have in common, other than having been Texas governors, pilots and cheerleaders (what is it with Texas?), is that they’re not stupid at all.

This doesn’t mean they’re right about everything or even most things. But they’re smart enough to know that most people in this country didn’t go to Ivy League colleges — or any college for that matter. Most haven’t led privileged lives of any sort, but nonetheless have unspoiled hearts and are willing to help any who would help themselves.

This is the essence of the so-called ordinary American. Self-reliant, individualistic, entrepreneurial, neighborly and strong. These people come in both Republican and Democratic flavors, though we’ve somehow lost sight of that in these hyperpartisan, sound-bite times.

Until someone emerges to remind Americans of who they are in a way that neither insults their intelligence nor condescends to their less-fortunate circumstances, smart money goes to the “stupid” politicians, who are dumb as foxes and happy as clams when their opponents misunderestimate them.

In Solyndra’s case, outside auditors from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) found that condition to be dire. “The company has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception, and has a net stockholders’ deficit,” the PWC accountants concluded. Even with the gigantic Obama loan, Solyndra was such a basket case that PWC found “substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.”

The “going concern” language is not boilerplate. The language is absent from the statements of many companies that actually end up going bankrupt. Auditors reserve it for the hopeless causes — like Solyndra.

With no alternative if they wanted to make a play for market financing, Solyndra’s backers disclosed the auditors’ bleak diagnosis in March 2010. The government had thus been aware of it for two months when President Obama made his May 26 Solyndra speech — the speech Solyndra backers were clearly hoping would mitigate the damage.

As president, Obama had a fiduciary responsibility to be forthright about Solyndra’s grim prospects — in speaking to the American taxpayers whose money he had redistributed, and to the American investors who were about to be solicited for even more funding. Instead, he pulled a Martha Stewart.

The president looked us in the eye and averred that, when it came to channeling public funds into private hands, “We can see the positive impacts right here at Solyndra.” He bragged that the $535 billion loan had enabled the company to build the state-of-the-art factory in which he was then speaking. He said nothing about how Solyndra was continuing to lose money — public money — at a catastrophic pace. Instead, he painted the brightest of pictures: 3,000 construction workers to build the thriving plant; manufacturers in 22 states building an endless stream of supplies; technicians in a dozen states constructing the advanced equipment that would make the factory hum; and Solyndra fully “expect[ing] to hire a thousand workers to manufacture solar panels and sell them across America and around the world.”

Not content with that rosy portrait, the president further predicted a “ripple effect”: Solyndra would “generate business for companies throughout our country who will create jobs supplying this factory with parts and materials.” Sure it would. The auditors had scrutinized Solyndra and found it to have, from its inception, a fatally flawed business model that was hurtling toward collapse. Obama touted it as a redistribution success story that would be rippling jobs, growth, and spectacular success for the foreseeable future.

It was a breathtaking misrepresentation. Happily, it proved insufficient to dupe investors who, unlike taxpayers, get to choose where their money goes. They stacked what the administration was saying against what the PWC auditors were saying and wisely went with PWC. Solyndra had to pull its initial public offering due to lack of interest.

No, Michele Bachmann doesn't have any dread disease. And, her disability with migraines is not something that should prevent her from seeking office (says the woman whose migraine is being controlled with a Tylenol #3 as she types).

This, however, is an excellent reason to have Representative Bachmann slink off into the sunset....

Michael Gerson makes a very strong case that Representative Michele Bachmann, who said earlier this week that the HPV vaccine might cause mental retardation, “seems prone to a serious condition: the compulsive desire to confirm every evangelical stereotype of censorious ignorance.” Ms. Bachmann, meanwhile, has dug in, insisting she will not apologize for her remarks.

She should.

What Ms. Bachmann said in the aftermath of the GOP debate is beyond ignorant and beyond even stupid; it was downright harmful, raising concerns about a vaccine that are simply not true (we saw a similar thing happen with childhood vaccines and autism). By now Ms. Bachmann surely must know that — and so for her to continue to stand behind her comments is irresponsible and even disgraceful.

And - if you are still thinking that she is not toast, then read this.

Since candidate Rick Perry's announcement that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (something that liberal Paul Krugman himself has proclaimed, though those on the left are loathe to recall it), many on both sides of the aisle are up in arms. Those who wish to stomp on Perry's chances to become Candidate Perry rail on about the horrors of killing Social Security, conjuring up images of dead and dying seniors littering our streets.

Yet what these people either do not recognize or refuse to acknowledge is this. Two issues are at play. First, there is the proposition that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. In today's column, Charles Krauthammer neatly affirms this.

You can force young people into Social Security, but if there just aren’t enough young people in existence to support current beneficiaries, the system will collapse anyway.

When Social Security began making monthly distributions in 1940, there were 160 workers for every senior receiving benefits. In 1950, there were 16.5; today, three; in 20 years, there will be but two.

Now, the average senior receives in Social Security about a third of what the average worker makes. Applying that ratio retroactively, this means that in 1940, the average worker had to pay only 0.2 percent of his salary to sustain the older folks of his time; in 1950, 2 percent; today, 11 percent; in 20 years, 17 percent. This is a staggering sum, considering that it is in addition to all the other taxes he pays to sustain other functions of government, such as Medicare, whose costs are exploding.

Yet, even if most of us agree that "Ponzi scheme" is an apt description, it does not lead to affirmation of this second proposition: Social Security should be ended.

Breaching an agreement or ignoring your boss might be bad. But should it be a federal crime just because it involves a computer? If interpreted this way, the law gives computer owners the power to criminalize any computer use they don't like. Imagine the Democratic Party setting up a public website and announcing that no Republicans can visit. Every Republican who checked out the site could be a criminal for exceeding authorized access.

The law even goes beyond criminal law. It allows civil suits filed by private parties. As a result, federal courts have been flooded with silly disputes. In one recent case, an employer sued a former employee for excessive Internet usage from work. The alleged offense: visiting Facebook and sending personal emails. In another case, a company posted "terms of use" on its website declaring that no competitors could visit—and then promptly sued a competitor that did.

Remarkably, the law doesn't even require devices to be connected to the Internet. Since 2008, it applies to pretty much everything with a microchip. So if you're visiting a friend and you use his coffeemaker without permission, watch out: You may have committed a federal crime.

Some of us are conscientious and committed to good health. My friend, Professor Keith Burgess-Jackson is such a man. Just look at his devotion to running for years! Such behavior puts couch potatoes, such as Yours Truly, to shame.

Scientists found that small amounts of dark chocolate may improve health in a similar way to exercise.

The researchers focused on the mitochondria, the tiny powerhouses in cells that generate energy, and discovered that a plant compound found in chocolate, called epicatechin, appeared to stimulate the same muscle response as vigorous activity.

Dr Moh Malek, from Wayne State University in Detroit, who led the US study on mice, said: ''Mitochondria produce energy which is used by the cells in the body. More mitochondria mean more energy is produced the more work can be performed.

When Sen. Jim Bunning held up an extension of unemployment benefits, Krugman lamented “the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties”

Take the question of helping the unemployed in the middle of a deep slump. What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment. …

But that’s not how Republicans see it. Here’s what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning’s position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief “doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”

Krugman added, “To me, that’s a bizarre point of view — but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe. And the difference between the two universes isn’t just intellectual, it’s also moral.”

Taranto went out to investigate what “textbook economics” says on the matter. He went to, of all places, Paul Krugman’s textbook (co-written with Robin Wells, AKA Mrs. Krugman) Macroeconomics. It says:

Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of “Eurosclerosis,” the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

Now Krugman’s extended moralizing about helping the unemployed is not invalidated by his hypocrisy, but his pose of astonishment that anyone could agree with what his own textbook says is hard to square with claims of consistency or good faith.

Will we ever be able to determine how much of who we are is a function of nature - and how much of nurture? Unclear. Of this we can be certain, however; the unique natural combination of our genes assuredly has a large impact on the person we are. Here is but one tale that confirms this.

The book has much to tell us about the ways in which genes, environments and their interactions shape who we are. Of course one should be careful not to extrapolate too much from a single case. It is an extraordinary fact, though, that separated identical twins often exhibit remarkable similarities—down to the smallest gestures—despite not growing up together.

The Center for Equal Opportunity -- a conservative think tank based in Sterling, Va., that pushes "colorblind public policies" and backs the elimination or curtailment of existing racial preference and affirmative action programs -- claims that UW-Madison gives "African-Americans and Latinos preference over whites and Asians" in admissions.

About 50 minutes into Clegg's press conference -- in which he took questions from media members, students and UW-Madison faculty -- noise erupted outside the banquet room. Protesters, most of whom were UW-Madison students, could easily be heard chanting "Power to the people!"

A statement released by Tom Ziarnik, general manager of the DoubleTree by Hilton Madison, states that "when threats were made by the protesters to rush the hotel, we secured all entrances to the property. Many protesters were telling us to ‘call the police' and ‘we want to be arrested.' Unfortunately when escorting meeting attendees out of the hotel through a private entrance, staff were then rushed by a mob of protesters, throwing employees to the ground."

Madison Police then arrived on the scene, according to Ziarnik.

Some of us believe in allowing views of all sorts to be heard - and then letting the best ideas win. Others believe in violence and intimidation to shut out competing views. Shame on those who subscribe to the latter.

Mrs. Bachmann's vaccine demagoguery is another matter. After the debate the Minnesotan has been making the talk show rounds implying that HPV vaccines cause "mental retardation" on the basis of no evidence. This is the kind of know-nothingism that undermines public support for vaccination altogether and leads to such public health milestones as California reporting in 2010 the highest number of whooping cough cases in 55 years.

The GOP critique of government in the age of Obama would be more credible if the party's candidates did not equate trying to save lives with tyranny.

Millions of words have been written about September 11, 2001. Yesterday, on the tenth anniversary of that horrible day, many more were added. Perhaps, however, none were more execrable than Paul Krugman's vile post.

Curiously, Krugman did not allow comments for his 9/11 contribution. Yet, not so curious at all. Even he, we can be certain, could imagine the thousands who would be outraged and disgusted by his words.

The good news, however, is that the majority of people do not begin to approximate the loathsome nature of the Krugman's of the world. Pejman Yousefzadeh has a lovely remembrance where he rightly acknowledges the quiet, succinct, dignified and gently caring words of people like Presidents Bush, Obama and Vice President Biden.

In the end, however, perhaps the key remembrance of 9/11 is who we lost that day. Please have a hanky handy when you view these two short videos.

With a presidential election in just over a year and an economy on the skids, we are indeed in a political season. Though I find much interest in these times, I cannot share the adoration some have for any particular candidate. With my fiscal conservatism, libertarian nature and somewhat liberal social beliefs, few candidates match what I believe. Rudy G came the closest - and - we all know what happened to him. So for me, selecting a candidate for whom to vote is never an easy or happy task.

Still, weighing and ultimately selecting is a task I take seriously. Many (most!) throughout history have not had the privileges and freedoms that Americans enjoy. Thus, even if I must hold my nose, I ultimately choose for whom to vote.

"The night is still young," as the saying goes. For now, however, Rick Perry is the fellow who most appeals to me. Sometimes, I think to myself, how can this be? He's far more to the right on most social issues than I am. His statements are often more brash than I would prefer. Perry is quite religious; I am quite not. Yet, Perry has certain beliefs and qualities that I admire. He's a free market fan, realizes that we cannot continue to spend our nation into oblivion - and, perhaps most important, I think he can beat Barack Obama.

Uh, Rudy.... I was a big supporter of yours for the 2008 election. But my friend; I think that I and 50% of the women in my ladies' bridge group could beat Obama if the election were held today! Not saying too much....

The Labor Department is investigating pay practices at many of the top companies in home building, hitting them with a broad demand for records that has led to complaints of regulatory overreach.

Recipients of the letters include PulteGroup Inc.,Lennar Corp., D.R. Horton Inc. and KB Home, according to people familiar with the matter. A Labor Department spokeswoman confirmed the investigation but declined to discuss details.

A copy of one letter, dated Aug. 1 and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, said the department was opening a probe under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs matters such as overtime pay and limits on using teen workers.

The letter instructed the home builder to immediately turn over the names, addresses, Social Security numbers, pay rates and hours worked for all employees over the past two years. It asked the names of all contractors hired in the past year. The letter didn't allege any specific violations of law.

Ken Gear, a spokesman for the Leading Builders of America, an industry trade group, said several of its members received information requests from the Labor Department, which the trade group considers "overbroad, asking for information that does not relate to employees of its members," he said. Saying the requests could require thousands of hours of work, Mr. Gear added that the inquiry "is especially troubling given that no issues have been identified to warrant an investigation."

Jerry Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Homebuilders, another trade group, said the use of independent contractors and subcontractors is "the lifeblood of the industry for all home builders." He called the requests from the Labor Department "the continuation of a pattern of regulatory intrusion by this presidential administration," adding that "it couldn't come at a worse time."

Peter Buffett received $90,000 from his father when he turned 19. Had he held on to the then $90,000, in the form of Berkshire shares, his current net worth would be roughly $72 million. But, Buffett sold his shares instead.

I was a student at Stanford University; there were no strings attached. Fortunately, I'd had the advantage of seeing my older siblings burn through most of their cash; I didn't want to follow down that path. At the other extreme, I might have done absolutely nothing with that stock—just left it in an account and forgotten about it. If I'd picked that option, my shares would now be worth around $72 million. But I didn't make that choice, and I don't regret it for a second. People think I'm either lying or crazy when I say this, but it happens to be true, because I used my nest egg to buy something more valuable than money: I used it to buy time.

Do I believe Buffett when he says "no regrets"? Yes I do. I have met many people throughout my life with great wealth - and with very little. While a certain amount of assets and/or income is necessary to have a decent life - having wealth is no guarantee of happiness.

How nice for Buffett that he was given a handsome nut to get started in life - and that he is wise enough to appreciate what really matters in a lifetime.

There can be nothing more moronic than choosing someone because he "looks presidential." In Britain, it would have meant the tall, slim and distinguished-looking Neville Chamberlain winning out over the tubby, bald Winston Churchill. Any country that selects its leaders on such a basis deserves everything it gets.

On the face of it, minimum wage laws sound great. People shouldn't have to work for "slave wages." People should be able to have some modest standard of living when they work.

But, who decides how much is enough - or - how much is too little?

And - what if the choice for a worker is a job at very low wages starting out - or no job at all? Should the government decide this for potential workers? Or, should the employee and employer have the freedom to choose?

In a market economy a business cannot pay its labor more than the value of the product that the laborer adds. If by hiring you a company can produce an extra 10 widgets per hour and widgets sell for $1 each, then it cannot pay you $11 per hour or it will incur losses and go out of business.

Notice that the amount a business owner can pay for labor depends on two things: 1) the productivity of the labor and 2) the price that consumers are willing to pay for the product. So, if you want to increase the wages of poor people you must do one of two things—make the labor more productive or increase the price that consumers are willing to pay for the product.

If we could make the poor better off by simply increasing the minimum wage, why not a minimum wage of $1000 per hour.

It has been estimated that nearly half of Detroit's adult population is functionally illiterate. Michigan's minimum wage keeps these unskilled workers from gaining employment and is partly to blame for the city's high unemployment.

If there were no minimum wage, however, then producers could hire the unskilled and train them. Those of us old enough to remember gas station attendants who washed car windows also remember that many a young person got their first job pumping gas. They learned important job skills that improved their productivity and let them move on to higher-paying occupations.

When I began selling real estate, it took me almost nine months before I sold a house - and earned any income whatsoever. Had I been working for an employer with minimum wage laws, I could not have engaged in this opportunity to learn and enter a free market.

I know a great many people today who would be willing to work for under minimum wages for some period of time, if they believed that doing so would end up with a decent job eventually.

Who are we to tell them and their employer that this opportunity is not available?